Comments

These exceptions are becoming more regular. Besides, why does the term “execution” not get the same treatment as “abortion” when arguments of convenience vs human life come up for both? Remember what became of the murderer Saul of Tarsus?

The exceptions are not becoming more regular, they just make the news. Executions which go off as planned are not news except for the immediate town.

The reason execution is not treated as abortion in most prolife circles is the difference between guilt and innocence. Elective abortuons are committed against innocent human beings for matters of personal convenience. Executions are committed upon adults who’ve committed crimes against their neighbors considered so heinous that their life is required as payment of justice.

I believe that serial murderer and hitman said
1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

Right, point taken. Thank you. The apostles also said in reference to when authorities are not ruling in God’s will:
27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, 28 Saying, Did not we straightly command you that he should not teach in this name? and, behold yet have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.
29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

This execution has some peculiar circumstances. It wasn’t a routine procedure gone wrong as it’s being portrayed by some.

(NewsOK) — Prison officers shocked an uncooperative Clayton Lockett with a Taser and found a self-inflicted cut on his arm in the hours before he was brought to the execution chamber, where medical staff had trouble finding a viable place to start an intravenous line to deliver deadly drugs, according to a timeline of the botched lethal injection.

After 51 minutes of trying to find a spot to insert the line in his arms, legs and feet, it was finally placed in his groin, and he was covered by a sheet “to prevent witness viewing of the groin area,” the timeline said.

“Obviously, they didn’t want to show that,” Gov. Mary Fallin said in a brief news conference Thursday to discuss the timeline sent to her by Corrections Department Director Robert Patton.

She said it was too early to draw conclusions about Tuesday night’s events.

“That is why I asked for a review,” Fallin said. “We don’t know all the answers.”

The problems starting the line and its location hidden under a sheet may prove important in an investigation into why the execution went bad. A physician present at all executions usually is able to easily look at the intravenous lines flowing into exposed arms of the person receiving a lethal injection.

Lockett writhed, grimaced and strained to move his head after the drugs were administered — and at a time when he was supposed to already be unconscious. The execution was called off, but he ended up dying, apparently of a heart attack, 43 minutes after the lethal injection began.

Sounds pretty suspicious. Have you seen “The Green Mile” with Michael Duncan Clark and Tom Hanks? Remember that botched execution scene where the guy faked like he wet the sponge but put a dry sponge between the helmet and the prisoner’s head?

It may be apples and oranges for those in the world, but for those of us who profess to be living in the kingdom of God, the issues are indeed relative. When women abort the innocent children, it is generally out of the personal convenience of not wanting to endure the consequences of their actions. (The vast majority of abortion cases are not rape related). The reasons for capital punishment, versus life in prison, are the convenience of less financial burden on society through life term prison sentencing. Doesn’t life in prison also protect society from the criminal as well?
You haven’t answered the question of the heinous crime of serial murder for hire in the case of Saul of Tarsus. What if he had been judged by man executed for his crimes? Would he have become the apostle?

No, its actually more costly to execute a prisoner. Its not for convenience.

Secondly, the bible supports capital punishment in the old testament and in the new. Perhaps Saul/Paul should have been tried and convicted. But he was never tried for his crimes. However, it shoyld be noted that even Paul didn’t oppose capital punishment carried out justly.

On a side, you’ve commented here in the past so I’m not sure why your comments are being held for moderation. If I don’t get it right away I will soon there after.

The bible supports capital punishment in the Old Testament (eye for an eye, etc.), but where in the New? It seems to me that God chose Saul for a reason. God chose each disciple for a reason. Man’s wisdom says choose the most scholarly and scripturally adept leaders with influence for the job. The only Pharisee chosen was…you guessed it, serial murderer Saul. What man considers as heinously unforgivable, God considers precious life in need of truth.

Romans 13. The rule eye for an eye isnt the citation I was referring to. Its Genesis 9:6 amd it gives the rationale, because we are made in God’s image.

Remember the places Jesus would have denounced capital punishment, the two places Dan cited. The adultress woman whom Jesus noted there were no witnesses to condemn her, which was required, and so neither would he. He made no reference to the permissibility or impermissibility of it. Also at his own trial. He asked what evil he was being condemned for, implying there were just reasons to condemn a person to death. And dont forget Paul who said essentially ‘If I’ve committed a crime then fine kill me, but if not why am I here?’

When God wrote in the earth (stone) with His finger, He gave the law by Moses, the Ten Commandments which permits and indeed calls for legal death sentences.
However, the second time God wrote in the Earth with His finger, this time through His Son, Jesus Christ, it was specifically at the moment when the law of Moses required the death by stoning of the fornication woman. If Jesus had said to stone her, He would have been following the law. But He did not. He did not. This second time God wrote in the Earth with His finger, Jesus was revealing the new law or new covenant of grace. Jesus said “Woman, where are your accusers?…NEITHER DO I CONDEMN YOU.” Then He said to her “Go and sin no more”. Clearly this go and sin no more (under the NEITHER do I condemn you AFTER BEING CAUGHT DOING SOMETHING THAT THE LAW REQUIRED DEATH AS PENALTY, grace covenant) reveals that the sin is not injurious to Jesus or to God, but to the woman’s own mind, body and conscious.
Jesus came to abolish sin and it’s power of spiritual death. IT IS FINISHED. Jesus is not still hanging on the cross dying and paying for each sin. Jesus satisfied our justice. “…Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us” How many times must we forgive, seven? No, seventy times seven….

No, it would not have been following the law for the woman to be stoned. The accusers did not present witnesses nor did the present the man alleged to have been adultering with her. Add to that her accusers abandoned their mission. None of the requirements for a valid death penalty were there.

What do you mean did not present witnesses? The said they caught her in the very act. The accusers only abandoned their mission after Jesus revealed his new covenant to them speaking with the transformative power of God. The woman was indeed guilty. Jesus forgave her. Jesus revealing to the accusers the same message of the cross that He revealed to His disciples in the Lord’s prayer… “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespasses against us”.

If they caught her in the act, they they were the witnesses. She did not deny the accusations. The point is Jesus judged in response to her guilt when He said that He did not condemn her and said go and SIN NO MORE. That was pointing directly to the sin, not to some possibility of innocence.

The point of that is the woman did not deny the charges since she was caught in the act. The Pharisees by the law could have stoned her right then, without taking her to Jesus. They were trying to trick Jesus by pitting his message of grace against the Law of Moses.

Haha, that is the same thing. Jesus was authoritatively claiming that His grace usurped the old covenant of the law of Moses, which is why so many followed Him. This infuriated the Pharisees who prided themselves on the virtues of knowledge of scripture and keeping the law of the 10 Commandments. However pure and holy the Pharisees presented themselves to the public, Jesus knew their heart. Jesus also knew their secret sin, which is why he said with power, he who is without sin, cast the first stone.

I don’t find that strange at all. You think Jesus only ever asked questions because He didn’t know? He asked her so that she would look and see that because Jesus interceded for her, her (legally correct) accusers left from seeking her punishment. Jesus Himself fulfilled the law, and His Grace covenant indeed usurps the condemnation of Moses’ Law.

Acts Chapter 9 reveals that Saul, who himself was a Pharisee and bible scholar both believed in the death penalty and purposefully carried it out himself. Then, on the road to Damascus Jesus physically blinded Saul alluding to his spiritual blindness. This forced humility by Jesus’s intervention helped Saul understand grace when God sent Ananias to miraculously restore Saul’s sight. Saul became Paul and that old Pharisee who held to the law of Moses was gone. Paul, as you know, became one of the most dynamic Apostles of Jesus Christ. Yes, Paul understood this grace revelation.

I do, I understand that God’s form of justice is not always in agreement with man’s. Where you say, “if you turn your back on me and despise me, Then I will have nothing more to do with you”, God says “Even when you were still in your sin, and despising Me, I came and died for you”.
Be very glad God did not follow your concept of “justice”.

If we want to get biblical, would we look at Jesus’ two examples of dealing with capital punishment? In one case, a woman was rightly condemned to death (rightly by their laws of the day – the ones presumably given to them by God). Her executioners bring her to Jesus to see what he would do. And what did he do? He saved her from her executioners and set her free, saying, “neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more…” Jesus opted OUT of the rules of the day in favor of grace, even though in this case, she “deserved” the death penalty (again, by the rules of the day).

The other time Jesus dealt with the death penalty, of course, was when he was run through a kangaroo court and executed by the state, himself. Neither of which makes a strong Christian case for support of capital punishment.

But setting the Bible aside, I think the key question you ask in your post, John, is, “should we judge the entire system by the exception rather than the rule?”

I think that we absolutely should hold the system accountable to the exception. If “only” 1 in 100 of those sentenced to death are there by mistake, that is exactly one too many. Taking away someone’s LIFE is the ultimate mistake. Until we can insure that no mistakes are done, we can’t morally support capital punishment, it seems to me.

The case about cruel outcomes of capital punishment falls in the same category, although admittedly, it may not be as compelling. If we can insure only 99% of executions are done “humanely,” then we are not to a place where we can morally support capital punishment.

The case about racial injustice and disparity is yet another reason why we can’t morally support capital punishment. IF people of certain races are being disproportionately executed, I don’t see how we can morally support continuing capital punishment, as it points to a huge flaw in our system.

And, as Kingdom Cadence points out, life in prison serves the same purpose of punishment for a crime.

First, no witnesses were brought with the woman accused of a capital crime which made it not eligible. Second, Jesus asked for what bad he was being tried for and didnt get a list of crimes or accusers thus not an eligible sentence. Serious study indeed.

If 1% of the executed are innocent, justice was served in the cases of the 99%. Laws aren’t unjust because they are not always perfectly applied or because sometimes the innocent suffer. The focus, then, is to reduce, if not eliminate, the errors that lead to such mistakes, not do away with the law entirely.

I was just using Dan’s numbers. It really doesn’t matter what the actual percentage is, unless one can show that the vast majority of those executed were actually innocent of the charges against them. I don’t, personally, believe that’s true.

Really? It would take a “vast majority” of wrongful executions for you to reject capital punishment? Like, what… 75%? If 75% of executions were mistakes, then you’d oppose it, but 50% is okay?

Regardless, it would appear that we might actually agree on a principle: There is SOME percentage where we could agree “capital punishment is not moral or just…” Then it’s just a matter of where we draw the line. You are okay with proceeding with executing innocent people, up until a “vast majority” are mistakes, whereas I am not willing unless there are no mistakes.

The adultress woman whom Jesus noted there were no witnesses to condemn her, which was required, and so neither would he. He made no reference to the permissibility or impermissibility of it.

Who says there were no witnesses to it? The text does not say that. Jesus did not say, “Hey, you have only one witness – or no witnesses – to the adultery, therefore, an execution can’t proceed…” No, he said, “Neither do I condemn you…”

You’re reading into the text that which is not there, John.

The text says she was “caught in adultery, in the VERY ACT…” ie, there WERE witnesses.

The line you appear to be referring to is this… “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” but he said that only after he “chased away” her accusers, but it does not say there were no witnesses.

Or perhaps I’m mistaken. Perhaps you can show me where the text tells us there were no witnesses.

I’ll wait…

One question related to this passage and the topic: Jesus said to this woman who, according to the law had committed a crime worthy of the death penalty. Jesus, after chasing off her accusers, said to her, “Neither do I condemn you…” Can any of you all say that to people you think are “sinning” in some manner? Can you say to the pot smoker, or the gambler, or the adulterer, “I do not condemn you…”? If so, or if not, in what context does it make a difference to you?

Condemnation is one aspect of many modern evangelical traditions that seems absent in Jesus’ life and testimony (with the exception of his condemnation of religious zealots…)

The line you appear to be referring to is this… “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” but he said that only after he “chased away” her accusers, but it does not say there were no witnesses.

The text literally does NOT say there were no witnesses. It literally says she was caught “in the very act.” The reliability of the “crime” is not in dispute in the text. It is a given that she was not only guilty of a capital crime, but that there were witnesses, according to the text.

…and, John, I believe Leviticus 20:10 is quite clear in requiring both adulterers to be condemned, not just the woman.

There are lots of what we would call “irregularities,” but mentioning them undermines Dan’s case that the woman was “rightly [condemned] by their laws of the day – the ones presumably given to them by God.”

Its also worth noting that He didnt “chase” them away. He merely drew in the sand and they abandoned their desire to see her condemned. Hmm. If they had such a strong case, with witnesses, why would they all just walk away?

I don’t believe that Jesus ever opposed the Torah. I believe that is a terrible misconception. Jesus said I have not come to abolish the law of Moses, but to fulfill it, (as the propheseid Messiah who would reign, but who would also be rejected). The Jews who were suffering the physical and cultural agony of Roman oppression, had in their minds that the Messiah fortold in their Torah was to be a stoutly mighty warrior “King of Kings” who would finally physically deliver Israel from the oppressive hand of Caesar in similar fashion to their former deliverance from Egypt and Pharaoh.

Even so, somehow, they forgot that even their own Torah reveals that the Messiah to come would be rejected. Not sure why that was missed exactly, but it was of course as God revealed. They missed the Messiah because when the Kings of Kings came as a humble babe proclaiming that the superior Kingdom of which He spoke was Spiritual, not natural as the Rabbis and the Pharisees all had desperately yearned for. Spiritual but no less Superior, because as Paul writes to the Hebrews, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

The root of all things seen is spirit, which is unseen, but it still the root.
Control the root of a thing, and you control the thing itself. (Any root canal victims present?)

Exactly, brother. Grace and condemnation cannot coexist. To put it simply, one cannot shake hands while pointing your finger. If your pride leads more than your grace, perhaps it is time to check your motive!

“And, as Kingdom Cadence points out, life in prison serves the same purpose of punishment for a crime.”

It appears that he didn’t claim that they provide the same purpose of punishment, only that they both accomplish the goal of protecting society from the criminal. That’s not the only goal of criminal justice, and in fact, in a just society, the prospective goal of preventing possible crimes in the future is secondary to the retrospective goal of punishing crimes that actually happened.

—

“IF people of certain races are being disproportionately executed, I don’t see how we can morally support continuing capital punishment, as it points to a huge flaw in our system.”

Or it points to the reality that some groups just commit crimes at greater rates than others — which, I’ll preemptively add, isn’t racist if one believes that the causes are cultural rather than genetic. Starting positions in the NBA, Nobel prizes, and incidence of alcoholism: none of these things — good or bad — fall out in perfect ratios proportional to larger demographics, and that hardly points to a “huge flaw in our system.”

Far more murderers are males in their 20s than females in their 80s, but that doesn’t mean that the “system” is sexist and ageist.

—

“Until we can insure that no mistakes are done, we can’t morally support capital punishment, it seems to me.”

A more childish insistence on the literal perfect being the enemy of the good, you’d be unlikely to find. Plenty of life-and-death decisions occur and MUST occur and SHOULD occur in the real world, in both the private and in the public spheres, and the perfect protection of human life cannot ever be guaranteed.

– Private companies build bridges knowing that they cannot ensure that the bridge won’t ever, ever collapse and kill whoever’s on it — and their not building that bridge might make it harder for an ambulance to cross the ravine and take some dying patient to the local hospital.

– Public agencies approve drugs knowing that they cannot ensure that proper doses won’t ever cause a lethal reaction — or they decline drugs ALSO knowing that they might have prevented quite a few dying people from having access to the one thing that might save their lives.

– Surgeons, cops, and soldiers make life-or-death decisions all the time, when their indecision can often be just as fatal.

If we were going to insist on a society where we could never take any positive action that risked even the slightest fatal mistake, we would be condemned to the sort of primitive life where EVERYBODY’S life expectancy would be dramatically reduced.

…and there’s a flip-side to the argument from uncertainty. There are cases where the person facing execution isn’t just the accused or the convicted, he’s known with ontological certainty to be the killer deserving death. There are cases where video evidence, forensic evidence, and eyewitness testimony drive out all rational doubt whatsoever.

If you think that the government is incompetent to act EVEN in those cases because there are other cases where doubt exists, what makes you think they’re competent to handle issues that are much, MUCH fuzzier? If a government cannot be trusted to make important decisions when the facts are beyond any real question, I cannot see how it can be trusted on where to set the minimum wage and how to manage subsidized medicine, the latter of which is another subject that frequently involves decisions of literal life-and-death importance.

—

Dan, no serious adult would insist on literal perfection in our political institutions.

No serious adult would assume that only systemic flaws and injustice would prevent every slice of society from perfectly matching the whole in terms of demographics.

And no serious adult would conflate the goal of public safety with the goal of retribution, even if, in some cases, both goals can often be achieved simultaneously.

The mistakes you make are common on your side of the aisle — but then, there’s little evidence that the Left actually has a great number of serious adults.

However widespread they are, the mistakes are so egregious that you should be shamed out of weighing in on any serious matter — but then, you’ve never shown much of a capacity for shame.

That won’t stop me from trying.

Dan, you’re regurgitating cliches that don’t withstand scrutiny. If you’re not going to think things through, you should do yourself and the entire world a favor and not let your secondhand slogans be transmitted from your brain to your mouth and your typing fingers.

“Condemnation is one aspect of many modern evangelical traditions that seems absent in Jesus’ life and testimony (with the exception of his condemnation of religious zealots…)”

Never mind that Jesus condemned religious hypocrites, not zealots — see Luke 14:26 for an excellent rebuke of the idea that Jesus wanted moderation in his followers.

Never mind that Jesus condemned lust, hatred, trivial divorce, dishonesty, and a host of other sins, and never mind that he affirmed the entire moral law and sternly warned against relaxing even the least commandment.

Never mind all that.

It’s worth pointing out, Dan, that you can’t even pretend to uphold a non-judgmental stance for a entire comment, short as that comment may be. No sooner do you rail against condemnation — putting “sinning” in scare quotes, as if the passage didn’t ALSO IMMEDIATELY record the command to “go and sin no more” — you point out that Jesus condemned “religious zealots,” and it’s doubtless you do so with an eye toward us, your political opponents.

No one is insisting that the gov’t need be literally perfect in order to act. If you read my words, you can see that I did not say that. So, there’s that.

Bubba…

If we were going to insist on a society where we could never take any positive action that risked even the slightest fatal mistake

In your examples – would we not build a bridge unless we can ensure that an accident won’t happen and it will collapse, for instance – there is not the act of deliberate killing involved. In the case of capital punishment, we are choosing to deliberately kill someone (for the crime of killing someone, ironically) knowing that maybe some 1-4% of the time, we will be killing an innocent person.

You will note that I have not said, “Let’s never convict ANYONE or give ANY punishment because we might be mistaken…” THAT would be the sort of “childish” stance you mention, but I have not taken that stance. I still say we can convict people of crimes, even knowing that some percentage of the time, we’ll be convicting an innocent person.

I’m just saying that it makes more moral and rational sense to me to replace capital punishment with imprisonment. That way, if and when people are discovered to be actually innocent, we have the means of at least partially undoing that grievous error. Once we kill someone, we can no longer undo it.

So, if you’d like to take on my actual argument, go ahead.

I’ll pass on defending your strawman arguments, though, since, you know, I didn’t make them and all.

I AM defending abolishing the death penalty. The reality that some percentage of the convicted are innocent is one reason, that is why I brought it up. And it’s a good reason. If you were ever wrongly convicted and sitting on death row, I’d have to think that you would no longer be an advocate for capital punishment. Is that fair?

Id oppose the death penalty if I were on death row for my own selfish self preserving reasons. Theres a reason you read in the paper that an innocent peraon is released from death row… because the appeals system is pretty effective.

To your first question: Yes. Because the death penalty is a permanent and irreversible penalty and, if a mistake is made, an incredibly, horrifyingly unjust penalty, it should be removed. At the very least, it should be reserved for ONLY those sentences where there truly is no doubt that the crime was done (I’m not a zealot, I can compromise). If a person is confessing the crime and evidence supports that reality, then and only then, in those cases, should we ever consider using the death penalty.

As to your second comment: Do you truly think it is “selfish” to not want to be killed for a crime you didn’t commit? Wouldn’t that be about justice, not selfishness?? How in the world is it selfish to NOT want to be killed for a crime you didn’t commit? It would be selfish to WANT to be killed, in fact, because that means that whoever actually did the crime is out there, free, perhaps to kill again.

It is absolutely not selfish to want to be freed for a crime you didn’t commit.

Dan its selfish to change your view for the sole purpose that it now affects you and not because of some principled reason. I oppose same sex marriage. I think same sex sexual relationships are sinful. If one of my children told me they were gay amd that is why I all of a sudden think theres nothkng wrong with homosexuality and also suddenly support same sex marriage, thats selfish. Just like if I all of a sudden opposed capital punishment merely because I found myself in that situation.

But, don’t you agree that it’s not selfish to realize, “I’m innocent and wrongly convicted and all death row. This should NOT be, it’s not just or moral…”? That this belief is just a belief in what is just and good and right?

I’m saying that for ALL those wrongly convicted and facing the death penalty (and their friends and their families), it is obvious that this system or solution is wrong and should not be. And not for reasons of selfishness, but for reasons of justice.

Do you REALLY think the person who is sitting on death row who may once have supported the death penalty but now realizes its great failure, that this person is selfish?

you point out that Jesus condemned “religious zealots,” and it’s doubtless you do so with an eye toward us, your political opponents.

Actually, it was stated with an eye towards what the Bible actually says. And I would think that would apply to any zealots, not just those I disagree with politically.

As to Jesus condemning religious hypocrites, this is true, but I think the term “zealots” fits, as well.

Jesus condemned the scribes and pharisees, even though they kept the letter of the law. He condemned them for their attitudes, one of gracelessness and zealotry, or at least that is how it seems to me.

As to moderation, I think the case can be made that, as the Bible says, there is a time for all things. Including a time for moderation and a time for action. Paul said in Philippians, “Let your gentleness/moderation be known to all…” Being moderate in at least some aspects of life is a given wisdom.

Indeed, I think that was part and parcel of the pharisees zealotry and hypocrisy and arrogance. They were arrogant enough that they could read the text of Scripture, be SURE that they know not only what it meant for them, but what it meant for others, then took this Scripture that is based in grace and used it as a battering ram by turning it into a petty rule book, with THEM being the keepers of the understanding of the “rules…”

Arrogance, zealotry, hypocrisy. This is what Jesus condemned. But not a “mere” sinner, even in a capital case. Even in such an open and shut case, Jesus responded with “Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more…” a response of Grace.

Can we say the same thing? Do you say to the adulterer, the gay couple, the thief, “Neither do I condemn you…”?

1) About your focusing on “the act of deliberate killing,” you earlier wrote, “Taking away someone’s LIFE is the ultimate mistake.”

I had no idea that death was less significant a mistake if it was the inadvertent result of negligence or the known result of inaction: if a bridge collapses and kills a person, is that person somehow less dead than someone killed by the state through electrocution?

2) It’s not irony “to deliberately kill someone for the crime of killing someone.” The crime is the unjust taking of human life, but not all instances of taking human life is unjust; this is a rudimentary concept of justice, and if you held the Bible in anything resembling the esteem you claim, you would submit to this principle that precedes even the covenant with Abraham, recognizing that the same God who forbade murder in Exodus 20 made murder a capital crime in Exodus 21.

3) I had no idea that it was impossible for an innocent man to die in prison while serving a life sentence, before he was exonerated. Good thing we’re avoiding that risk!

4) You seem to think that Jesus’ condemnation “would apply to any zealots, not just those I disagree with politically.”

Huh. I think it’s pretty zealous to oppose capital punishment EVEN in instances where guilt is clear, just because there are instances where it’s not clear. I think it’s zealous to accuse people of a “digital lynching” for criticizing a race-essentialist conspiracy-mongering pastor who slandered the United States by accusing the government of creating AIDS as an act of attempted genocide. And I think it’s zealous to accuse people of deicide and worshipping a bloodthirsty idol for taking a different position on the Iraq war.

But maybe that’s just me.

Anyway, Jesus didn’t condemn zealotry.

You say that the Bible says there’s a time for all things: there’s a time to kill (Eccl 3:3), but you seem to disagree. For what it’s worth, nowhere does the Bible say that there’s a time to sin in general, or to lie or commit idolatry specifically.

And the Bible DOES NOT condemn zealotry in one’s devotion to God.

Jesus taught that the greatest commandment is to love God with all that you have. I’m not sure how he could have been more clear. And on the subject of Jesus’ clear teachings…

6) I’ve already pointed out that Jesus’ words there didn’t end with “I don’t condemn you.” He immediately went on to command, “Go and sin no more,” but you don’t seem eager to acknowledge that, much less obey it.

Nevertheless, I don’t condemn you, and I do wish you would go and sin no more.

(I wonder how many blog owners wish you would just go, either way.)

If you don’t, I still don’t condemn, because it’s not my job. Justice is in far better hands than mine — and that fact ought to cause you to worry, but again we’re back to your incapacity for shame.

You say that the Bible says there’s a time for all things: there’s a time to kill (Eccl 3:3), but you seem to disagree.

Well, I don’t think the Bible is a rule book. That is a poetic expression of a Truth about moderation, it seems to me. Even though it literally SAYS “there is a time for everything…” I don’t think that’s literally true. There is NOT a time to rape, for instance.

No, the text here is not a literal rule book telling us there is literally a time for every possible act, it’s speaking about moderation in general.

I would suggest that there’s even a time for moderation when it comes to moderation!

I’m very glad to hear that you can affirm, with Jesus, the approach of “Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more…” You’re the first conservative of many I’ve asked who could affirm Jesus’ teaching on that point.

Bubba…

if you held the Bible in anything resembling the esteem you claim, you would submit to this principle that precedes even the covenant with Abraham, recognizing that the same God who forbade murder in Exodus 20 made murder a capital crime in Exodus 21.

Oh, so we have to take each line in the Bible literally in order to hold it in esteem? So, you think that adulterers should still be executed, as the Bible teaches in the OT? Or do you not hold the Bible in esteem?

No, because I hold the Bible in esteem, I’ve learned not to treat it like a petty rule book, but strive to treat it as the Book of Grace I believe it to be. And so, because I hold it in high esteem, and especially because I hold Jesus’ teachings in high esteem, I see a text where Jesus not only refuses to go along with a legitimate capital punishment, but he saves the death row inmate from the punishment and says to her, “Neither do I condemn you…”

Treating it like a woodenly literal rule book is not a good way to esteem the Bible. You agree with this, I’m sure, since you almost certainly don’t support capital punishment for the various crimes pointed to in the OT.

“You’re the first conservative of many I’ve asked who could affirm Jesus’ teaching on that point.”

Not true. I’ve never claimed the right to condemn, nor have I ever condemned anyone. I have also stated that he who unrepentantly engages in sinful behavior has already condemned themselves, so no condemnation from me is even required. I have also insisted that it is slanderous and deceitful for someone like yourself to accuse another of condemning sinners for merely pointing out that their behavior is sinful and forbidden and not likely to result in a happy eternity.

“So, you think that adulterers should still be executed, as the Bible teaches in the OT?”

The Bible doesn’t teach us to execute adulterers. It doesn’t even teach us to execute homosexuals. Someday it would be nice to see a manifestation of “serious and prayerful” study of Scripture from you.

“…I see a text where Jesus not only refuses to go along with a legitimate capital punishment…”

What text would that be? Not any of the Gospels. For in the story to which you refer, He does not “refuse” to go along with a legitimate capital punishment. He refuses to be trapped by those wishing to entrap Him. Note how He clearly states to those present, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” This indicates He was totally “going along” with a legitimate capital punishment. Do you think He would have challenged the crowd in this manner if He thought even one of them would regard his own self as being without sin? Had there been such a person, the first stone would have been cast and subsequent stones would have followed. Now, we can say that Jesus, being both God and man, may have known before He said a word that none would have been so bold as to have regarded himself as being without sin, or He was just taking a big gamble. But the fact is that by that challenge, He was not refusing or suggesting that He would interfere with a legitimate sentence being carried out.

And as I’ve mentioned before, from a civic standpoint, He had not authority to condemn her if her “witnesses” or accusers would not. He had no firsthand knowledge of her being an adulteress at all as a fellow citizen, but He knew she was as God since He told her to go and sin no more. Are you going to say that encouragement was of a general nature and not related to her being an adulterous? If so, based upon what, exactly? In any case, we are taught He will come at the end of days to judge the living and the dead and by judging us unworthy of Heaven, He will condemn us and her. He simply had no need to condemn her at the time for as God, and no authority or right to condemn her as a fellow citizen on the basis of hearsay evidence of those no longer present to push their accusations against her.

Here’s the Reader’s Digest version: The story is not an indication that Jesus opposed the death penalty at all, much less for the taking of innocent life.

I’ve never claimed the right to condemn, nor have I ever condemned anyone. I have also stated that he who unrepentantly engages in sinful behavior has already condemned themselves, so no condemnation from me is even required.

So then, what I’m asking is this: Can you say to the gay married couple, “I do not condemn you…”? Or would that just gall you to say that?

I will say that, from the bleachers here, it sure looks like you and yours spend a lot of time exactly condemning people who disagree with your hunches about morality.

Marshall…

The Bible doesn’t teach us to execute adulterers. It doesn’t even teach us to execute homosexuals.

? There are verses in the OT where God commands Israel to kill adulterers, to kill “men who lay with men” (which you take to mean, people who engage in gay sex), etc. What do you mean by this? Do you mean that it is your interpretation that while Israel was commanded by God to not allow adultery or “men laying with men” – and that these are rules that apply to us today, that God’s additional command to kill these people was specifically to Israel, and NOT a universal rule?

That’s a fine hunch, but then you’re right back to the problem of your wholly whimsical and inconsistent (or missing) rubric as to what parts of the OT to take as rules for us and what part not…

As to the rest of your comments, you’re welcome to your opinion. I disagree with your opinion and don’t find it to be rational or biblical or moral.

“So then, what I’m asking is this: Can you say to the gay married couple, “I do not condemn you…”?”

Stupid question. I just got through explaining that I do not condemn, it isn’t my place to condemn, they condemn themselves by indulging in expressly sinful sexual practices. However, that “from your bleachers” you see those of us who acknowledge reality and care enough to point out the sinful nature of such behaviors for the benefit of those who risk their salvation in order to indulge in it, and then equate that to condemnation, you might want to back off and review your own behavior in condemning conservatives as racists and homophobes for the slightest mention of anything related to either topic, you hypocrite. Pointing out the reality that the behavior of a fellow human being is sinful is not condemnation. It is a warning that condemnation is coming if they don’t repent.

As to the rest of your comment, you once again fail in your attempt to insert ambiguity and confusion into clearly revealed Scripture as regards OT laws and which are still applicable today. This purposeful deceit in order to justify your support for sinfulness isn’t working, either in your pretending that there is inconsistency or whimsy in our understanding of Scripture’s clearly revealed teaching, or in your pretending that you truly care about seeking the will of God over the posturing of yourself as a truly Christian-like person.

“I disagree with your opinion and don’t find it to be rational or biblical or moral.”

No doubt, and it goes without saying. It also goes without an explanation or argument that supports your disagreement. As is so common of the leftist/progressive and, apparently, anabaptist, mere assertion is enough.

I just got through explaining that I do not condemn, it isn’t my place to condemn, they condemn themselves by indulging in expressly sinful sexual practices.

Soooo, the answer to my question is, “YES, I can say to the gay couple, ‘I DO NOT condemn you…'”? Just trying to clarify if there’s a difference between saying, “I just said I don’t condemn them, their behavior does..” (which sounds rather condemning, just sayin’) and your ability to look someone in the face and say, “I do not condemn you…”

“Soooo, the answer to my question is, “YES, I can say to the gay couple, ‘I DO NOT condemn you…’”?”

Soooo, you don’t have the grace you demand of others, as demonstrated by your clear lie and distortion of my clearly stated position. I don’t have authority to condemn. I would not say “I condemn you” OR “I do NOT condemn you”. What YOUR looking for, what your distortion of my position suggests is not an accurate assessment of how I would respond to the homo couple in question. To say that I don’t condemn implies that I don’t find fault. That is not the case and your insistence that finding fault equates to condemnation is a blatant lie on your part, and for one who believes people like me struggle with definitions, this is all the more damning of you.

But here, Dan. Let’s use the verse you to which you so deceitfully default when discussing OT teachings:

“If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.“ Lev 20:13 -NIV

As I have said and as your favorite verse shows, they condemn themselves by indulging in their perverse behavior. I don’t even need to consider condemnation. It’s a done deal. If that “sounds rather condemning” to you, it should. Because it is. But not by me. Your question implies the distinction you now choose to pretend doesn’t exist, because you would prefer to slander and lie about me and others who don’t pervert Scripture as you do.

But I’ll go a step further. Rather than look them in the face and say, “I don’t condemn you”, I’d be far more likely, were I do look them in the face to tell them anything at all as regards their choice, “Your behavior is an abomination to God from which you need to repent and do no more.”

Marshal is saying he doesnt condemn anyone because its not his job…theologically speaking. Its outside his authority to bestow condemnations, thats for God. However what youre doing is trying to get Marshal to say he doesnt condemn the gay couple meaning passing no moral assessment on their homosexuality.

You know youre doing it and you know it’s intentional and you know it’s underhanded.

Rather than look them in the face and say, “I don’t condemn you”, I’d be far more likely, were I do look them in the face to tell them anything at all as regards their choice, “Your behavior is an abomination to God from which you need to repent and do no more.”

I hope this clears up your intentional misunderstanding.

Got it. Jesus, the son of the Almighty God and our Savior and Teacher, when confronted with a woman guilty of a capital crime said, “Neither do I condemn you.”

You, a mere mortal, but one who is trying to follow in Jesus’ steps would choose NOT to say, “I don’t condemn you…” but would instead say, “Your behavior is an abomination to God…”

Perhaps you don’t see that as “condemning…” but many others would.

I’ll opt to follow in the steps of Jesus as demonstrated in this story about the capital offense woman who Jesus would NOT condemn.

John, I was asking a simple question: Jesus gave us an example, when faced with a woman who committed the capital offense of adultery, of choosing to not only NOT choosing to execute her… of setting the standard for execution impossibly high (“let him who has no sin execute her…”)… and of saying, “neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more…” I’m interested in knowing if you all can also say to the person whom you think is committing an egregious sin “Neither do I condemn you…” and following in Jesus’ steps in this regard. THAT is all I’m doing, asking if Marshall (and you, and anyone else here) can join Jesus in saying “Neither do I condemn you…” What you read into what I’m asking is your business, but I’m simply asking what I’m asking, trying to get an answer.

So, where you say…

Its outside his authority to bestow condemnations, thats for God.

What I’m hearing you and Marshall say is you don’t really think it’s your place to overtly and directly say to someone, “I condemn you,” but neither do you think you should follow Jesus’ example and say, “I do NOT condemn you.” Is that what you’re saying? That you don’t think Jesus was setting an example for us in this moment?

To say that I don’t condemn implies that I don’t find fault. That is not the case and your insistence that finding fault equates to condemnation is a blatant lie on your part

Do you think that when Jesus said to the woman who committed adultery, “I do not condemn you…” that he was implying he doesn’t find fault?

You all seem to read an awful lot into people’s words – things that may not necessarily be there. When I say to you, to John, to others who I may think are messing up (“sinning”), “I don’t condemn you… Indeed, I love you and accept you as a beloved brother in Christ…” I’m not implying that I think what you’re doing is cool. I’m simply following in the steps of my Lord, Jesus, striving (albeit poorly) to follow his example. I do that because I’m a follower of Jesus and it makes sense to me.

? I’m holding a conversation with you all, offering my opinions and asking questions where I see problems with your position, trying to get clarifications. What is “smart ass” about that? Is it possible you’re reading ill intent into my words when they simply aren’t there?

Dan, if you’re going to insinuate that the theologically conservative approach to Scripture reduces it to a “rule book,” a “petty rule book” or a “woodenly literal rule book,” don’t pretend that you’re doing so respectfully.

After all these years, I think it’s more than justifiable to conclude that you don’t esteem all of Jesus’ teachings — e.g., why we were created male and female, what his death accomplished, and that his resurrected body could be physically examined — and you don’t esteem God’s written revelation.

The two aren’t unrelated: your approach to Scripture bears no resemblance to Christ’s approach.

Forget the high and lofty standards of a uniquely holy Creator, you don’t even play by the rules that are common to humanity: I don’t think I’ve ever personally encountered an individual who was as thoroughly disingenuous as you.

I mean this with no respect whatsoever, because I honestly don’t respect you, but at least I’m honest enough to say so.

I absolutely don’t think the “theologically conservative” approach to Scripture reduces it to a rule book. Only those who follow in the footsteps of the Pharisees. But certainly, some in the conservative camp, do.

Including myself, at one point.

So, no, I’m not insinuating something that I don’t believe. I hope you have the integrity to acknowledge this, rather than make your own insinuations that turn out to be false, but get left behind, just the same.

And I absolutely do esteem all of Jesus’ teachings. I may disagree on YOUR interpretation of what they mean, but my disagreeing with your interpretation is not, in any sense, a failure to esteem Jesus’ teachings. You see, I fully understand the difference between Bubba’s interpretations and Jesus’ teachings. I’m able to distinguish the two.

“You, a mere mortal, but one who is trying to follow in Jesus’ steps would choose NOT to say, “I don’t condemn you…” but would instead say, “Your behavior is an abomination to God…””

Absolutely. Where’s your trouble with this? The passage clearly states that the Pharisees purpose was to trap Jesus. If He had said to stone her, he could have been in conflict with the Romans, who did not allow the Jews to carry out death sentences. If He had said NOT to stone her, he could have been accused of not supporting Mosaic law. But that law also said that she would have to have been caught in the act, that witnesses were necessary to condemn her. Jesus was NOT a witness to her adultery so since her accusers were no longer present to condemn her, how could He condemn her. You want to pretend that He was demonstrating a method of how we are to deal with sinners. That wasn’t the point at all of the story. In the meantime, however, He clearly acknowledged to her that she was guilty of the charges against by telling her to “Go now and leave your life of sin.” Thus, I am very much consistent with any lesson that this story was to relate to us. I don’t condemn the homosexual, both because that is HIS job, as well as the fact that they condemn themselves by continued engagement in homosexual sexual behaviors, but I also am very much in line with the teaching of Christ by warning them that they are indeed sinning and should stop doing it. YOU, on the other hand, being morally corrupt, would join the homosexuals in celebrating their sinfulness. You are like of whom Paul speaks in Romans 2: Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do these things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things, but also approve of those who practice them. You approve of those who practice that which God called abomination. Like Jesus, I would tell them to sin no more.

And if you see that as condemning, then you don’t understand the proper usage of the word. To condemn a behavior is to express disapproval for that behavior. This is my duty to do in a case where I’m asked to comment on the behavior of homosexuals. But to condemn a person, as to a sentence for a behavior, that isn’t for me to do so I would not condemn anyone. So to pretend there would be a scenario in which I need to choose whether or not to condemn a homosexual, I’m under no obligation to say one way or another. If it would help your irrational confusion, I could say, “I have no authority one way or the other as regards condemning you for your sinfulness, but I do indeed condemn your sinfulness. God says you have condemned yourself by your continued engagement in behavior He said is an abomination, so I don’t even need to condemn you since you’ve already condemned yourself by your unrepentant actions. As such you ARE condemned.”

If that doesn’t explain it to you, then you are either incredibly stupid, or incredibly dishonest.

Back to the story, Jesus did invite whomever was amongst the crowd that was without sin to go ahead and carry out the execution, but by saying it in that way, He satisfied the Pharisees without being in breech of Roman law. He acknowledged that, were she indeed guilty as the story said she was, then she was worthy of suffering the sentence for the crime which God had mandated. Any way you want to look at it, your weak and willfully dishonest preaching of a lesson the story does not teach fails miserably no matter how badly you want it to be true. Indeed, you pretend Christ’s example from the story is not to condemn, which I haven’t done and don’t do because it is not my place to do His job, but you ignore what He says next as if it provides no example, which is to encourage a sinner, such as a homosexual couple, to repent of their sinful behavior.

“Do you think that when Jesus said to the woman who committed adultery, “I do not condemn you…” that he was implying he doesn’t find fault?”

No. I think when He said that to her He was saying that because He wasn’t a witness to her sin and no other witnesses were present to charge her, He had no authority by Mosaic law to condemn her. It isn’t rocket science, Dan. But obviously He did find fault since He encouraged her to go and sin no more. One doesn’t say such things to another who isn’t behaving badly. Why would Jesus?

“You all seem to read an awful lot into people’s words…”

Not at all. But it is definitely what YOU’RE doing. You’re suggesting something about what Jesus meant when He said, “neither do I condemn you” that the text doesn’t support, just so you can pretend it is some kind of “example” we can use to decide if we should support capital punishment, or worse, that you are trying to suggest that Jesus, the Second Person of God, would contradict Himself as regards capital punishment.

“Trying to point to holes in your position, as I see them…”

You see all sorts of things that don’t exist. Holes in our positions are just another example.

This is off topic, but it refers to John’s post regarding Georgia gun law that Dan diverted to a discussion about Cliven Bundy. I came across an article that gives more details of the background story leading to the standoff and posted a link to it at that thread. All who took part in that discussion, particularly Dan Trabue, should give it a look. Thank you. As you were.

Absolutely it did, mostly by eliminating that which makes the charge against him the foolishness it is. Look through my comments where we discussed his “racist” remarks and you’ll find the full video. You can probably google “full Bundy comments” or some such and find it that way as well. It seems both that video and the standoff story are both the result of the typical leftist BS we’ve come to expect.

I finally saw the full video and am not quite clear on what those on the left thought was automatically racist. Quite honestly he said the same types of things that Bill Cosby has been saying for a few years about the dissolution of the black family. As I said elsewhere his comparison of welfare to slavery may not be the most artful, but it does raise some valid points. The problems is that those valid points can’t be discussed reasonably because those on the left simply exclaim “racist!’ and rational conversation becomes impossible.

You’re kidding, right? Is this the same Obama who has stuck his big foot in his mouth regarding cops investigating a man lurking outside a home without having any way of knowing the lurker lived in the house? As I recall, he made disparaging comments about the cop on the scene. In other words, the thing about Obama is he’s a freakin’ idiot whose opinions ain’t worth jack.

Why, because P-BO’s always right? While I haven’t seen everything Bundy has said, I don’t recall a sentence beginning with “The thing about the negro is…”. , I actually just re watched the unedited version of the video that seemed to have started all of this, and shockingly enough he never says “The thing about the negro is…”. So it would appear that P-Bo and Dan have gone off half coked, without accurate information and are spreading untruths,. To be clear, there could be something showing the alleged statement, but based on what I’ve seen, it’s not in the video in question. So, I’ve got to wonder if you’ve seen the unedited video, and what is it about suggesting that negro families staying together and that work is better than welfare that you find so racist and offensive? What is racist about suggesting that race relations have improved since the Watts riots? Praising Hispanic families for staying together, OMG what kind of racist crap is he spewing.

Maybe the problem is that some folks have not actually done their research before slapping labels on others.

Also, just Googled the phrase Dan “quoted”, anyone surprised it didn’t show up?

Perhaps you and P-BO should be more precise when you claim to be quoting someone.

Of course, you can take anything out of context and make it sound bad. In this case, had you gotten things correctly, you would have heard him qualify his statement, making the point that he is talking about what he has personally seen and experienced in a certain geographical location at specific times, not that he was making a generalized statement denigrating all Negros.

Given the fact that you chose to ignore a number of questions about what Bundy ACTUALLY said, one must wonder if you’ve actually put forth the effort to watch the unedited video, or if you’re just parroting P-BO and the left wing talking points

Perhaps you’re just parroting right wing talking points and defending the indefensible?

When guys on “my side” say things wrong, I have no problem pointing out it’s wrong.

Craig, perhaps you have grown up in places where there are no racists and no racism. Perhaps you have not met people like this or known them personally. I have.

Any time – ANY time – someone begins a sentence “The problem with the Negro…” or “the problem with ‘the gays…’,” or, “the problem with the Romanists…” and proceed to wax bigoted about the problem with “those people,” it’s always a bigoted statement, lumping all members of a group into one batch of “bad people…” less human, less Christian, less ideal than “my type of people…”

I know these people. I’ve had them in my families, they are real and bigoted. The people in my community know these people, have them in their families. No doubt, Obama has encountered these sorts, too.

If this guy wanted to put some distance between himself and his actual words, clarifying that he did not mean what he actually said, he could have.

NO ONE was impressed. He doesn’t speak in a manner that impresses. Not even close to being significant here. The point is that you STILL have not pointed out what makes his statements in the least bit racist. You don’t like his unprofessional manner, so you call him a racist. How lacking in Christian love and grace you are! In fact, you’re an unmitigated asshole for letting the trees get in the way of seeing the forest here. No one is a racist simply for saying “nigger” or “negro” or “those people”, especially when “those people” clearly does NOT refer to the entire freakin’ race you hating S.O.B! Shame on you for slandering this man based on something that ISN’T THE LEAST BIT RACIST!!! More proof that you are a false Christian. What a Pharisee!

Before I go, I will say so as to clarify, I have no idea if Bundy is a racist or not. MY point is that the unedited version of his comments (and even the edited one) does NOT provide ANYTHING that an honest and honorable person can use to determine if he is a racist. But leftists like Dan don’t need anything more than to accuse.

Any time – ANY time – someone begins a sentence “The problem with the Negro…” or “the problem with ‘the gays…’,” or, “the problem with the Romanists…” and proceed to wax bigoted about the problem with “those people,” it’s always a bigoted statement.

but not a bigoted statement to say a black person is the worst negro in america or that the great thing about Obama is that he doesnt speak with a negro dialect and is light skinned. Oh wait, thats because those statements were uttered by an anointed liberal democrat.

Dan your BS is so obvious and nonsensical its not even amusing anymore. Youre a joke.

John, I have said pointed out specifically how Biden’s comments about Obama (the ones that were a directly racist comment about black people in general) were racist in tone. Words have meanings. Insulting one person is not racist. Insulting a whole group because the group is, in your estimation, flawed, IS racist or bigoted.

“Insulting a whole group because the group is, in your estimation, flawed, IS racist or bigoted.”

And yet, you have not demonstrated where in Bundy’s unedited comments does he demonstrate he’s speaking of a whole group, as it the entire black race. In other words, you’re an unmitigated liar or absolutely clinically stupid or too freakin’ lazy and partisan to truly review his comments in their entirety. You suggest you’ve done that but thus far have failed to point out how any of it constitutes racism. Bundy doesn’t speak of the black race in general. He’s speaking of minorities negatively impacted by liberal welfare policy and whether or not they’d be better off as slaves. It is obvious to the average honest and honorable observer, who is unwilling to cast judgement without a fair consideration of the commentary, that he is discussing his opinion of just how bad welfare recipients have it by his hyperbolic comparison to slavery.

BS abso-freakin-lutely! I cannot recall that you have ever jumped out in front after leftist racism is expressed publicly. It has come from Biden, Reid, Obama, Holder…and you’ve said absolutely nothing about it UNTIL someone from the right brings it up after you have so willingly falsely pointed it out in “perceived” right-wingers. Bundy is just such an example as you so casually described his comments as racist when first you brought the guy up in an unrelated discussion. You asked about the standoff and that you didn’t mean to discuss his “nutty racist comments” (paraphrasing here). You didn’t discuss the comments. You simply labeled them immediately as racist based on YOUR subjective opinion of a guy you don’t know. And you dare speak of partisan projection?? You’re a hypocrite.

Dan,
How seriously can we take you when you continue to focus on one small portion of the entire series of comments, then proceed to continuously mis-quote the statement in question. It seems as though, if it is necessary to mis-quote someone in order to make your point, then perhaps the problem is not with the statement you chose to mis-quote. It’s also hard to take you seriously when you ignore the larger context, retreat into name calling (partisan), choose to characterize comments from liberals differently than those from conservative (racist sounding vs. clearly racist), and dodge questions.

It would appear that it has, in fact, come down to Dan intentionally mis-quoting someone in order to buttress his preconceptions all the while choosing not to answer questions. Unfortunately, no one but Dan is surprised by this.

The organizers get a little pig, piglet, and they cover this little animal with tons of grease. It’s a greasy little pig. And then they turn the kids loose, they invite these children to chase one of these pigs,pigs are really slippery to begin with, when you cover them with grease they’re really slippery. Oft times, talking with Dan reminds me of chasing one of these little pigs in a greased pig contest, regardless of all our efforts, anytime we get close to making progress, it seems as though we watch it slip right out of our hands and Dan scampers away.

Religious, political, and social commentary through the filter of a conservative Christian worldview. I focus on addressing why critic's arguments against my views fail rather than the traditional positive case-making for the Christian worldview.